Certain supporters of Paul hope that a financial downturn will vindicate the Paul message...I don't think so! by Jessie James Jones, Jr
(libertarian)
Monday, March 17, 2008
So you all are banking on people suffering to prove that Paul's campaign is successful. That is pathetic!!!!
***Let's not even talk about that during a economic downturn wealth is transferred and currently the Fed is positioning itself with the power to hold mortgage debt!!!! That's the real story with the Bear Stearns Buyout. THE FED WILL BE THE BIGGEST LANDLORD IN THE WORLD IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS YET YOU GUYS ARE CELEBRATING THE DOWN TURN BECAUSE IT MAKES YOUR HOURS OF MAKING SIGNS WORTH IT...PATHETIC!!!!!!! If anything you should hope he gains power in prosperity instead of downturn because like a balanced equation during a downturn the forces of good become more legitimate but the forces of evil become stronger. Question: How are you going to end the federal reserve when they hold 300 billion in mortgage debt...what are you going to do make the banks buy it????
You do know that if a severe downturn were to happen you would be celebrating on the hopes dreams and futures of millions of people whose savings and homes have been taken. People went to sleep millionaires on Sunday are now relatively destitute. Expanded that country wide....Right or wrong, I don't think they'll respond well to your.."I told ya so" campaign slogan.
Also, this argument ignores a huge fact, which is, Paul had a legitimate chance of winning this time just as much as any other candidate but failed to do so. He failed on every level of leadership and management of this campaign to the point he was tantamount to a model at a carshow and was instructed to just stand there and look pretty while the grassroots did the work. Case and point, imagine if Paul had to pay for all those signs, imagine if he had to actually come up with and manage the money bomb concept from a top down method. I'll use his own words to prove this logic wrong, if you people keep subsidizing this failed plan you'll get more of it. The only success was the pathetic pooring of cash into his coffers which to this date we still don't know how much is left over or where it is going. We have assumed the don't ask don't tell policy and anyone who does is therefore disloyal.
Paul is a politician, and as such, like a wife in Iran, should be regularly put in check, which I mean to say he should be probed, he should be investigated, he should be criticized as do all politicians. We have forgotten the real reason why we are in this mess which is because too many either failed to educate themselves about a politician or failed to criticize a politician. Not the Fed, not international bankers, not some silent society. They are all rendered powerless in a government where the people check the government by checking their politicians, through non violent protest, constant calls and mailings, and political activism. Yet, Ron Paul is some how immune. Please!! No he is not!!!!! But here's the thing, if Ron Paul supporters actually held Ron Paul's feet to the fire, then that sends a message that no candidate is above reproach. But I guess, we can finance Paul's message at our expense but i guess the supporters feel it would be just wrong for us to send out a message at Paul's expense.
So please, apart from the obvious flaws in this I told ya so message and how that would run others away from the campaign, personally, if I have in one hand a shady but healthy financial market with savings in the bank and somewhat of an even playing field, however that comes about except the Mark of the Beast, for me to provide for myself and my family, versus Ron Paul or his supporters to be able to say I told ya so in 4 years then frankly damn Ron Paul and damn You sir or madame.
If he wanted to win he should have...
1) Reduced his spoken message to a few less controversial edicts. I.E. Bring the troops home, Cut taxes and spending, More liberty and less spying and government intervention. My goodness he is the only fiscal conservative and had the Jane Roe lady Norma McCorvey from the Roe vs. Wade case endorse him and still was not the Republican nominee...talk about mismanagement!!!!!!
2) Sucked up the mainstream media from the jump!!!!! Blogs bring nerds the media brings the ignorant masses...and the ignorant masses elect candidates, hands down!!!! I know I use to be one of them before Paul. The mainstream media should've been on the bus on the plane in his hotel room at night. Like it or not, they get the message out better than any grassroots effort. Because oh my goodness it's not like we haven't had a President who ran on one thing and got elected and did another...THANK GOD THAT HAS NEVER HAPPENED IN THE HISTORY OF AMERICAN POLITICS AND GOD FORBID IT HAPPEN WITH RON PAUL!!!!!
3) Had an endgame strategy if the nomination couldn't have been wrapped up. I.E. a third party strategy with a big candidate. Right now, there is a real possibility that if Obama has the nomination stolen at the convention that he could and should run third party. Paul has not positioned himself for that. He could've ran as a Liberitarian candidate he has categorically denied that possibility. So hehas effectively put his eggs in one basket and floated it up the river.
But Ron Paul didn't want to win. He just wanted to get the message out. Well if he wanted the message out he should've posted a bulletin on myspace. The only reason you should run for President is if you want to win the Presidency.
Ron Paul has failed and the only success that can be garnered from this failure is for the supporters to engage in a debate about the success and failures and correctly point the fingers at the people to blame and to praise, not hope everybody fails in order to lower the bar for everyone and get revenge by spitting in their face by saying I told ya so.
Ron Paul did an excellent job of attracting the political nerds like you and I into the fold. But the inverse is that he did an excellent job of running everybody else away. His campaign proves that ignorant people who make political decisions a week before the election are the people who win elections. Without those stupid people, this campaign is designed to fail. You only need core people when you are forming your own party which the last time I checked, Ron Paul is still a Republican and that's not likely to change.
Therefore, stop hoping for revenge in the form of an economic slowdown because unless all of the supporters of Ron Paul have 2 million in positive liquid assets, a recession or depression would affect you too.
P.S. It won't effect Paul, either, because remember he has his book to fall back on and about $6 million of our money to stuff his pillow at night.
No cursing in this one other than damn so let the real criticism begin.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 14
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Jessie James Jones, Jr only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Jessie James Jones, Jr is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Now, Jesse, I know there was mismanagement in the campaign and deaf ears at both the campaign and the Austrian web, but whether the campaign is at fault for the lack of press or if the press deliberately shut him out is in question.
I tried to get the campaign to sloganize in the very beginning and sensed a level of arrogance within the camp.
It is certainly a fact that the run of the mill citizen just goes with the TV flow and thinks very little. Even today when I ask folks what they think about Dr. Paul they simply do not know who he is.
And, I am not for suffering or I told you so, but folks are already suffering and that is inevitable given the the fact that in our government the inmates are in charge of the asylum.
Right now I can't figure out whether Dr. Paul has some stealth plan for success. But, if he does not, then I think he owes us some leadership to assist us in making a statement. And, I don't mean just suggesting a date for a march and leaving us to our own devices.
Posted By: Ivan from Oregon
Date: 2008-03-17 12:25:46
I'm having a hard time swallowing so much BS in one short article. To start with, he was the Libertarian Party candidate for President in 1980. In the last almost 30 years, that party hasn't improved its vote count beyond 2%. This has nothing to do with (top-down) "mamagement" - though I'll concede that at least some of it could be due to vote rigging.
We are at the tail end of a very well thought out plan to turn us into a fascist dictatorship. Part of that plan is control of the media, now accomplished. If it weren't for the internet, we would have zero success now. Another part of the plan is to dumb-down the populace, now also largely accomplished. Most of our populace now doesn't read and many recent "graduates" can't even read their diploma. Another part is to destroy moral values, another a "progressive" income tax, etc., etc.
Your silly comment about who paid for all the Ron Paul signs begs the question: "who paid for Hillary's?" In her "and Obama's" case, probably the taxpayers, since their $50 million each (or so) came from people who expect to fleece the rest of us through some "favors" derived therefrom. $6 million is "chump change" in a presidential campaign.
The salient point, however, is that apparently Dr. Paul's (and our) message has a hard time gaining any traction with the zombies whose most important time is watching "American Idol" or something equally important and being almost purposely oblivious to what's going on with their country. They then resonate to such "deep" messages from Yomma or Momma as "The American people are looking for CHANGE" with nothing else specified. Oh well, back to the football game. Note that "civics" hasn't been on school curicula for a couple of generations.
You're a good example of the rest of us (5% or so) that is capable of grasping the message of liberty. Like others of us "libertarians" you speak in paragraphs instead of sentences.
If you're putting blame on our leader for not being able to convey the real meaning of liberty in terms of "sound bites" for the masses through a MSM that deliberately ignores him because of the message, why didn't you show us how to do that by writing your article in sound bites - it would have wider appeal??
Finally, to finish my rant, I know Dr. Paul, and the insinuation that the $6 million in the bank (if it hasn't been spent) would be targeted to "enrich" himself is insulting.
I agree!! He has done nothing but benefit from this campaign in every way yet supporters feel like Paul is going to help them pay their mortgage when things go wrong. Paul isn't going to do anything but take that money and run!!!!
You people are so full of it. Ron Paul has advocated for personal freedoms. He is not here to save us from anything but ourselves. Who do you think will get the country going again, economically? The American People.
His message will appeal to those that are feeling the crunch and turn to Ron Paul's solid monetary policy. To act like Ron Paul supporters were praying for an economic meltdown, is wrong.
While all you tabloid lovers watch Eliot Spitzer get ousted, the story on the back page: FED bails out criminal mortgage lenders. YES, A BANK WAS JUST REWARDED FOR RIPPING AMERICANS OFF... REWARDED WITH AMERICAN MONEY!!!!
I've written a few articles in support of Ron Paul that you can find here on Nolan Chart. I have tried to reach out to Ron Paul and his supporters to try and implement a plan of action since we still have about 7 more months to get his "message" to the masses. Nelson Hultberg also wrote a piece on how a 3rd party run can work.
Jessie, I don't think you'll find any of us who are part of the rEVOLution trying to rub the economic mess our nation is currently experiencing in the faces of our opponents. My mission in life and what I am writing about it to try and help people understand that for which they do not know...the definition of ignorance. We need to reach out in love, not vindication, so I agree with this point.
But it seems your entire article, outside of a couple of paragraphs, had a different agenda. You wanted to vent at Ron Paul and his campaign.
Sure, many of us are upset at the results of our efforts. I imagine Ron Paul isn't happy either. Could he and his campaign done better? Sure. But realize one thing. Even if Ron Paul and his staff ran a flawless campaign according to your standards, it wouldn't have been good enough. There were too many cards stacked against him from the outset.
As you know, MSM was against him. This includes television, not just Fox News, but ALL stations. This includes all of the radio announcers...even the self professed libertarian Neal Boortz, who was adamantly against Ron Paul because of his stance on the War on Terror and the War with Iraq.
The only perfect campaign Paul could have ran is if he supported the War on Terror. But even with this "perfect" campaign, the Establishment would have not let him play in their sandbox because of his "radical" views. By this I mean, of course, the abolishment of all of the departments whereby the elite continue their king and queen games on the labor of the serfs.
It is not that we Ron Paul supporters want to see the U.S. economy go down the drain and relish in this "victory." What we want to see happen is the U.S. Congress go down the drain and relish in that victory.
Ron Paul can still lead the rEVOLution. His book is the manifesto for it and the timing couldn't be better, especially because of the cracks in the armor of the Federal Reserve.
Choices have to be made and they have to be made now if this rEVOLution is to move forward and the "message" is to expand to those ignorant masses. This is what we should be spending our time and effort on, not complaining about what has already happened.
Move forward with your thinking and write about what YOU can do to make a difference NOW! We're all ears!
I AM SO SICK OF YOU CRY BABIES TALKING ABOUT THE MSM!!!! REGARDLESS THEY ARE A FORCE AND THEY HAVE TO EITHER BE WITH US OR WE NEED TO SHUT THEM DOWN AND UNLESS YOU WANT TO WAIT 80 YEARS FOR THE LATTER TO HAPPEN YOU'LL HAVE TO GET THEIR SUPPORT PERIOD!!!! If you cry about them you'll cry about the not have congressional backing of his policies then cry that the people are revolting against his administration.
You know there is a medical term regarding a person attributing an internal problem or result to an outside source... IT'S CALLED DENIAL. The MSM could have worked for us or against us...we choose to have them work against us. Case and point the same people criticizing Glen Beck were loving him after his radio interview. Stop Flip Flopping RONPAULERS!!!! back to the issue...
I have read even on this site people gloat about when things go bad it'll some how catapult the campaign. I've even heard Ron Paul himself speak of a catalyzing event that may take place between now and the convention right before the air was taken out of the delegate bomb scheme. You damn right there is some anger but not at Paul. Frankly, I've never spoken to the man and unless he ghostwrites on Nolan Chart comments, I probably won't.
My frustration is this blind support of a man who has failed to produce success and the protection of this politician by his supporters-so called.
I again say he failed and that if you keep subsidizing his campaign before you correctly identify the failure from within you'll get more of the same. The only response to this statement is that he got the message out. But guess what he was running for President, if he wanted the message out he could've done that for free and should've made that know in November. But he accepted money to win the presidency and failed to do so, so I'm rightfully agree at the failure and point out what I view are apparent.
"Paul is a politician, and as such, like a wife in Iran, should be regularly put in check, which I mean to say he should be probed, he should be investigated, he should be criticized as do all politicians."
You can start by looking at Paul's stance of Free Trade. Most of Ron Paul's supporters are for getting America back to the constitution and keeping America from being destroyed by those trying to reign in world government. But Free Trade is the straight ticket to a world economy, the end of America, and world government. This goes for Libertarians who are also for Free Trade. Read my response to this Nolan Cart article:
It's silly to think of "winning the presidency" as being the reason that Paul got donations. Certainly some thought in those terms, but not all.
For one thing, "winning the presidency" these days means little more than being selected as the next American Presidential Idol. The popularity contest mentality, along with people gambling with their votes, hoping to "pick the winner", assures that election coverage avoids any real talk of issues facing the country.
I suspect (perhaps incorrectly, true) that many of those supporting Paul do so less out of a mistaken thought that he could win a popularity contest driven by lemmings, and more from real support of his ideas, policies and positions.
I never really suspected that he had much of a chance to "win" the presidency, nor do I think that there's much chance that he still can somehow pull the proverbial rabbit from the hat. I support Paul because he has ideas that I like, policies that are sound, and positions that I identify with.
"Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people." -- Eleanor Roosevelt
They don't call it "The Fed" for anything. It's an insider joke by the Power Wealthy.
They are the ones getting fed and fat on the backs of Everyday Americans like you and me.
Is it time to end voluntary slavery to this cabal of scumbags who overthrew the American Republic in 1913?
When are my fellow Americans going to get up off their Realty TV watching, Socialist Welfare Security collecting asses and throw off this yoke of voluntary slavery?
and even smaller minds make statements on a missed the point.
The idea being discussed is that Ron Paul supporters are seeking legitimacy in economic downturn and whether economic downturn is a legitimate proof of Ron Paul's ideas.
Posted By: Scott from Oregon
Date: 2008-03-17 13:57:54
Dude, most of what you just barfed up will burn your throat for days...
The only thing you said that had any merit was that Ron Paul is not above reproach for his methods.
That is true. But look at your suggestins-- YOu wanted him to turn his campaign of ideas into a campaign of "slogans". People who heard what he had to say oftentimes didn't "get it". You think by reducing his ideas even further, people would suddenly have epiphanies? "Do Away With The IRS!" just sounds crazy. Explaining why we don't need them sounds logical...
Then you wanted a great suck up to the media. Seems to me, I watched the anatagonism from the media from the get go. Why the antagonism? HIS IDEAS.
And so on and so forth. I am wasting my time here, hitting tennis balls in a raquetball court...
You people make me sick. I can't belive im reading so much b.s. & misconception in one article. You people are so caught up in believing everything the media tells you and forming your undereducated opinions off of that, its people like 'Jesse Jones' that are the reason a communist like Hillary and war grazed 'conservative' are even in this race to begin with. BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE EVEYTHING THEY SHOVE DOWN YOUR THROAT AND REPEAT IT LIKE YOU KNOW SOMETHING. YOU ARE PATHETIC. A ture blue example of why the contury is how it is today.
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds". -Samuel Adams
The supporters of the Revolution are using Ron Paul's platform to make a statement that we are unhappy with where the country is & is heading. Ron Paul might or might not be the next President of the United States but his suppoters will not stop pushing until it's really over. And even after the election, IT ISN'T OVER because his ideas need to be told to the thousands of braindead Americans like 'Jessie Jones'. The revoltuion isn't just about Ron Paul, it's about the idea that America needs a change.
Ron Paul supporters did not cause the economic downturn.
They are entitled to say, "I told ya so". They are also entitled to criticize the people who caused the downturn which happen to be the same people who own the MSM special interest groups who, from the very beginning, proclaimed that Ron was, "not a serious candidate", even though he is as qualified or more qualified than anyone else running. In the first PR course you will take, they will tell you that it's much easier to give someone an opinion than it is to change their opinion once they have one.
Ron Paul did not win because the system is rigged, the final numbers are decided not counted and this is the "make believe Democratic process" we have,... it's "make believe" just like the US is a "make believe" Constitutional Republic.
"Paul had a legitimate chance of winning this time just as much as any other candidate but failed to do so".
You are so naive to believe We The People control this Presidential Race through our vote, our always "symbolic" vote.
People are waking up to this Fraud called The US Government, and let me tell you, once most of them do they will try to take this country back... and it won't be pretty.
Jesse said: "The MSM could have worked for us or against us...we choose to have them work against us. Case and point the same people criticizing Glen Beck were loving him after his radio interview."
Jesse, First off, why the use of capital letters? It's a rather sophomoric way of making a point.
You site one example, Beck, as one media individual who is promoting a book that has similar ideas to Paul's. Every other media individual was against Paul. I personally monitered TV and radio the moment Sean Hannity started bashing Paul after the first republican debate. If 99% of the media is against you, how can your "message" be heard?
When it came to the internet, Paul's message stood out.
Right now, you're message does nothing to change the status quo. You offer nothing but complaints and I don't expect that I'll be reading anymore of your diatribe.
The problem with claiming that Ron Paul supporters are revelling in "I told you so" and rejoicing at the suffering of Americans is that those Americans include us.
Whereas I am indeed frustrated with people who were quick to claim Paul was a kook, yet who could not cite a single Ron Paul position on anything, and whereas I sorta like the fact that current rumblings might possibly jolt the nation's attention away from American Idol for a moment, I too am included in the numbers who are getting poorer.
And I'd like their attention to this matter so I don't get any poorer....
When the market tanks, that's my retirement tanking -- the retirement that I put away prudently -- instead of partaking in the debt addiction of America. It's also my family and friends who are suffering -- whom I would never place upon the sacrificial altar of my own rightness.
I do agree, however, that it is certainly impolitic to sneer "na-ner na-ner" at those we hope to persuade. We need them "for" us, not against us.
Does anyone want to tackle my comments? Are you all a bunch of Free Trade globalist supporters at the expense of America and freedom? Do you all support a one-world government or are you people just not reading my comments?
I agree with you Loddi Doddi. I don't think Paul is a legitimate candidate. But so far as this comment thing...I only use it as a log of who is reading my articles because what usually goes on is that people read the first two paragraphs and post comments or read the whole thing and put on airs of grandeur with their analysis which completely miss the point.
I actually did go back and read what you posted in that other thread. I can't say I disagree with it at all. You beat me to the reply first though, ha!
What will happen in the future of the U.S. and the rest of the world is a move towards parity. The U.S. has a long way to go down and the rest of the world, especially where we currently buy our products cheaper, has a long way to go up.
As an example.... If a person from India comes to the U.S. and obtains a degree in engineering, he will go back to India and make $7,500 a year. The American, with the same degree, will start out with an American company making $54,000 a year. So 7 engineers can work for the same fee that 1 does in America. Something has to give.
The higher degree of probability of maintaining one's lifestyle can only be accomplished in other places than America as a consequence.
Heck, even the Philippine Peso has gained 20% on the dollar in the last couple years!
What will change this pattern moving forward? There are only two things that can change. India's engineers will have a pay increase or U.S engineers will lose their job as they can't compete with a lower paying engineer. Since even if the engineer doubled their salary, they still would earn half as much as the American engineer.
I'm an advocate of Free Trade, but the above dynamic shows a flaw in the outlook for Americans. But whom do you blame?
If I'm an American business owner, I'm going to get my help at the best rate possible. There is nothing that says I need to hire Americans only when I'm chasing profit right?.
So is the American engineer to blame because he chose a career that has low labor cost competition? Is not this person responsible for themselves? The answer is yes, and yes. Could this individual go to India and make $7,500 a year and have a good, if not better quality of life? Yes. So perhaps hard choices need to be made.
Either way, interesting topic that needs to probably be explored more....
No, it is your major, you are the one who has to deal with it. I didn't choose your major, I chose a different one. Don't blame me for your choices. Deal with the fact that something has to give.
Your childish behavior via name calling shows how well our educational system is doing these days. Talk to me like a man Jesse. I never said anything about moving to India. I said it's a decision that person has to make if they want to maintain the same quality of life because to expect to continue the same quality of life here in the U.S., based on the fact that there won't be any jobs here, means you're living in a dream world.
You're so smart Jesse, answer me these questions.....How can the U.S. compete with all these other low labor countries? What are engineers in America producing today that lower cost labor engineers can't produce cheaper?
Ask Loddi Doddi if I missed the point. I went back and read the post they referenced....you obviously didn't.
"I am more of a protectionist when it comes to trade with other countries. I believe in national security. A one-world economy is but a small step away from having a one-world government. Maybe I am an isolationist, but who likes to be called that? I don't want to be isolated and I'm all for trade, but I'm not willing to give up my freedom and job so that people in other countries like China can have more jobs at a lower pay rate and corporations can make more money."
This is what you wrote in your other post Loddi. I showed that your thinking is somewhat correct in that other countries pay their employees less and thus this takes away jobs from Americans right? I then concluded with the point that American business owners also have a right to make profit and can do so by hiring these lower waged employees. They are Americans too you know. If you work in an industry where there is overseas competition, you better well know that this competition can someday take your own job.
My point further was that if quality of life is important to you, then you can move to the other country and work for a lower wage. Or you can choose a different career here.
I'm not going to feel sorry for you because you don't have foresight. When these companies started to make our products cheaper, Americans didn't complain. You can't find a tv or formerly vcr, not DVD player made in America today, but you can buy them cheaply. You'd rather protect the jobs here so the result will be the rest of the world buys things cheaply, but we don't here?
As I said, something's got to give. Do you disagree with this?
How is this not relevant to your point of globalization?
Sorry had to pause there for a second, but let me answer your question unlike others.
You asked what do we do in order to compete with India...well first...WE REALIZE THAT WE ARE COMPETING...stop allow all these multinational corporation to determine public or financial policy. Largely Ron Paul's economic stimulus plan addresses this thoroughly unfortunately he failed to hit on fractional reserve banking. If you have free country with no taxes other than corporate than trust me every company in the world would be here right now.
The issue again is whether an economic downturn is the proper horse to ride this message in on and I say no and for those saying that to stop.
Don't worry, I won't hold you to the same standard of staying on topic. Feel free to continue bouncing around the main point.
Why don't y'all yell at each other some more? That will get your goal accomplished.
McCain 2008! Bomb Iran! I'd get real used to those slogans, if the Libertarian idea of a learning process is to adapt the Howard Dean approach to a net canidacy and then blame the MSM when it implodes.
Don't worry Logical Premise. These supporters are intellectually DOA with regard to the so called MSM. They'd rather blame the media instead of doing a sumo move and use their own weight against them. They'd rather follow Ron Paul instead of testing him by fire. They'd rather keep giving money rather than demand responsibility and accountability. They actually believe that a donation to Paul's Presidential campaign wasn't actually for winning the presidency....these are who you are addressing...trust me I can't say anything to defend them.
Correct me if I am wrong, but if our unit cost of production plus frieght, lead times, and other externals is less than that of other countries would we not be a net importer of jobs? Except to normalize this equation we would need to denominate that cost in purchasing power rather than dollars.
But, the fact is that we are a net exporter of jobs. So, what is wrong? Are we saying that people in other countries are just better workers? I think not. More probably they are just willing to work for less purchasing power.
I was forced to land in Cumberland, Md due to weather a few years back. I went for a walk and dropped by the Union Hall. They were playing dominos since the Tire Company they used to work for had left town. A clear case of cost compensation push.
General Motors is worth less than I am yet they have a reading room where workers come each day and sit and read periodicals and magazines because the Union will not allow them to be fired. The term feather bedding comes from the historical fact that when the Railroads went to diesel they no longer needed the fireman to shovel coal. But the unions would not let the Railroad fire them. So they put the feather bed in the caboose so the guy could sleep on the trip.
I am not suggesting that this is the whole root of the problem, but it sure doesn't help. We have lost our edge.
"I showed that your thinking is somewhat correct in that other countries pay their employees less and thus this takes away jobs from Americans right? I then concluded with the point that American business owners also have a right to make profit and can do so by hiring these lower waged employees. They are Americans too you know. "
That's your answer? They are americans too? They are Americans who are selling out America. Not very American if you ask me. In fact, I would dare say that they are traitors to America. Do you not comprehend what I'm speaking of? Did you read this article about Ron Paul and Free Trade?
"I'm not going to feel sorry for you because you don't have foresight. When these companies started to make our products cheaper, Americans didn't complain. You can't find a tv or formerly vcr, not DVD player made in America today, but you can buy them cheaply. You'd rather protect the jobs here so the result will be the rest of the world buys things cheaply, but we don't here?
As I said, something's got to give. Do you disagree with this?
How is this not relevant to your point of globalization?"
You have no sympathy? Who gives a rat's ass about your sympathy? Because I have no sympathy for you or the corporations who are selling out America and every other country across the globe. You are right, you have no sympathy for America or anyone else, and that's the f-ing problem.
"Don't worry Logical Premise. These supporters are intellectually DOA with regard to the so called MSM. They'd rather blame the media instead of doing a sumo move and use their own weight against them."
Yeah...that's why I'm writing a book to make a difference in America moving forward. I'm trying to prepare America for what lies ahead, to stop making the same mistakes that have got us to where we are today. It doesn't have to be a hard landing for everyone.
I originally wrote the following in my first reply to you:
What will happen in the future of the U.S. and the rest of the world is a move towards parity. The U.S. has a long way to go down and the rest of the world, especially where we currently buy our products cheaper, has a long way to go up.
If I go out and start a business and it is successful, are you saying I can only hire Americans? The the success or failure of my business has nothing to do with the cost of labor? So I am to hire only Americans at the risk of failure of my business? Do you know anything about running a business?
I ask you pointed questions and you don't answer them.
From a business decision standpoint I have no sympathy. From a personal standpoint, sure. That's why I am writing....to help people.
"If I go out and start a business and it is successful, are you saying I can only hire Americans? The the success or failure of my business has nothing to do with the cost of labor?"
No, I am saying (if you've read what I said) that Americans cannot compete directly with slave labor and then expect to remain a free and independent society. Can you not comprehend this?
"So I am to hire only Americans at the risk of failure of my business? Do you know anything about running a business?"
Do you know anything about remaing a free and independent nation?
"I ask you pointed questions and you don't answer them."
I gave you pointed answers prior to you asking and you ignored them. Look at what I am saying.
Ron Paul needed a surprise in New Hampshire - either a win or a strong second - and he didn't get it. The grassroots put a lot of effort and resources into the NH primary, but the national campaign dropped the ball, in my opinion. Ron Paul spent a grand total of 17 days in the state, which is not how you win there.
If he'd had a good showing in the NH primary, it would have been all over MSM news, we would have been off to the races, and I believe we'd be looking at a different picture today.
I think the campaign never really believed it was possible to win the nomination, so they never had a real plan to get there. Bless their hearts, the amateurs running the campaign didn't really have a clue.
Dr. Paul has 20 years on consistent voting. Do you really believe he was trying "take us" in regards to donation money?
Do you realize that the Elites were greatly frightened by his run?
Imagine you invested 60+ years of political battleship to move towards a world government controlled by you and then Dr. Ron Paul comes in talking about destroying it as soon as he gets into office. Then this message catches on and more and more people are joining.
We were fighting the Evils of government in this campaign and have started a movement that will not go away.
It may take a few years to see the fruits of this last run but it you are bitter at Dr. Ron Paul and his political career. Why don't you invest your life in the same way he did and make a difference for people like you and me?
It's easy for any fool to complain and criticize, and most do.
"Imagine you invested 60+ years of political battleship to move towards a world government controlled by you and then Dr. Ron Paul comes in talking about destroying it as soon as he gets into office."
truthfocused,
You really should read the comments in this section. If you think Ron Paul was trying to destroy world government, then why is he for Free Trade? Free Trade is globalism. Globalism is the move towards world government. Read my comments please.
The effort needed by a candidate that the media does not intend to annoint -- in terms of dollars and time spent campaigning in each state -- is more along the lines of Mitt Romney's campaign.
I think this is a valid comparison because you've basically got the public thinking both are kooks - Romney for being LDS and Paul for not being on board with the approved Republican plan.
The media did not want to notice Romney either. It took an enormous amount of spending to get the recognition the media had no intention of giving him.
Even when Mitt was cleaning up in the delegate count the media still announced McCain as the front-runner -- till he finally was....
Reading the blogs I often come across the comment that Mitt Romney won only 3 states. The fact is that he won 11 before he dropped out, yet 3 is a rather common belief, since that is all that was ever noted on the news.
Mitt Romney spent an enormous amount of time campaigning in the early states, not just some. He won the states that were ignored by other candidates by spending there and being there...
Although Ron Paul received some impressive donations, it was still precious little in comparison to the amount Romney had to spend to get to the point where he was considered nationally viable.
Another thing. Some of his ads were pretty hokey. Amateur supporters made better clips for YouTube.
Sigh. It is going to take some really huge money to make this thing work in the future.
The nutshell of your arguement is, "Americans cannot compete directly with slave labor and then expect to remain a free and independent society."
Got it.
What you are saying is that in order for America to be "competitive," we need only look at the price of labor (as that is all your are proposing to change or protect). You claim that in order for America to "remain a free and indepenent society," we need to protect our high labor costs so we can keep paying our employees a higher wage.
So you would like for our government to pass some laws that say only American owned companies that have Americans work for them at a high cost of labor are allowed to do business in America right? Otherwise we won't "remain a free and independent society" right?
I suppose innovation is irrelevant then. If another country came up with a way to produce a product at a lower cost or make it last because of better quality, by your protectionist standards, that wouldn't be allowed because it interferes with our labor costs that we need to keep low to maintain our freedom. But isn't that what America used to be? Were we not the innovators? The country where all great ideas evolved from?
How about we innovate again? How about we work on quality again? How about we make a prodcut the world wants instead of consuming it?
You would rather have a higher priced product to protect freedom rather than openly compete with the world whereby all Americans can pay a lower cost. You would rather have American companies bring their labor back from foreign countries so they can make a more expensive product here.
I understand now.
Sorry, my freedom isn't threatened by foreign competition. Matter of fact, I can spend more on other things because prices are kept low. This in turn generates business for those that otherwise wouldn't benefit from it under your plan of protectionism, because I'm spending it on more expensive products.
My freedom is threatend more by my loss of purchasing power via the Federal Reserve system, and that is something I am fighting.
If you think a senior, who is on a fixed income wants to pay more for items when their dollar pays for less and less, ask them what they want to see happen.
As I have repeatedly said, something has to give. I asked you what you thought had to give and you never answered that question.
You are being dense, man. Without tariffs, our economy is wide open to being overrun by and interconnected directly to other economies. Do you not understand this?
Tariffs allow our economy to actually compete because we are able to allow our economy to grow and produce our products without having to compete with slave labor produced products coming from other countries into our economy, like Walmart.
Slave labor is great for corporations, but bad for our sovereignty and independence. Bad for our economy, and the economy of the world. Look at what is happening. Tariffs act as the buffer between different economies and allow those economies to remain more independent, and thus retain sovereignty.
"As I have repeatedly said, something has to give. I asked you what you thought had to give and you never answered that question."
What has to give? Stop globalization. That's what needs to give. Did I not already answer that in what I am saying?
"You would rather have a higher priced product to protect freedom rather than openly compete with the world whereby all Americans can pay a lower cost. You would rather have American companies bring their labor back from foreign countries so they can make a more expensive product here."
If the price is higher because it costs more than something produced by slave labor, then there should be a tariff in place to protect us from competing with slave labor. If the US is not being innovative, then it should suffer the loss in their wallet, not at the expense of American liberty so that American elites can continue to make a buck.
Globalism is gutting the American economy and Free Trade is what stared the lower of American wages, and with cashflow being exported to other economies via globalists, the US economy is being killed. Lower wages for Americans means that they have less money to pay for products they buy. How can you not see this?
You guys reak of jealousy! But why not......ANY campaign would love to have the devotion of the Ron Paul supporters. Too bad you miss the point so profoundly........it's the message, stupid!
Dense? Do you really need to stoop to this kind of comment when we're just two people discussing opinions?
Here is what you propose...and the result:
The Hawley-Smoot Tariff (or Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act)[1] was signed into law on June 17, 1930, and raised U.S.tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods to record levels, and, in the opinion of most economists, worsened the Great Depression. Economists have now generally regarded this Tariff Act (i.e., tax increase on imported goods) as the greatest policy blunder in American economic history, coming as it did after the 1929-30 recession and preventing the economy from a full, natural recovery which had already started by the Spring of 1930. Many countries retaliated with their own increased tariffs on U.S. goods, and American exports and imports plunged by more than half.
I'll let you have the last word....I'm sure it will be another wonderful adjective describing your view of what I write.
But how can you refute the above disasterous result your are proposing in the name of Freedom?
You are still missing the point and yes, you are being dense. How can you expect Americans to compete directly with slave labor? How can you completely integrate economies and expect nations to remain sovereign?
"But how can you refute the above disasterous result your are proposing in the name of Freedom?"
The answer to your query can be found in your own post:
"coming as it did after the 1929-30 recession"
"Many countries retaliated with their own increased tariffs on U.S. goods, and American exports and imports plunged by more than half."
Becuase of the increase in tariffs from other countries, our economy suffered by being on the short end of the stick in regards to tariffs waged. Europe was also in a tariff war because war was on the brink. I don't agree with tariffs as a means to wage economic war, but tariffs have their place, and if you can't trade nicely with some country, then perhaps there shouldn't be trade with that country. Perhaps instead of relying on trade so much, America could be more productive and innovative, as you point out.
This is a invariably reference to the Hawley-Smoot act. You may recall Al Gore’s argument—complete with a picture of the two Congressmen who sponsored the bill—against Ross Perot on Larry King Live during the NAFTA debate. Unfortunately this argument neglects to observe that the Great Depression started before Hawley-Smoot was passed, which in fact contained a lowering of certain tariffs as well as a raising of others (raising the question of which act caused it—raising or lowering tariffs?).
More basically: In what alternate universe does an effect precede its cause?
And the fact that Al Gore made the argument should give us pause. He hasn’t met a bottle of snake oil yet that he could not, ethically speaking, sell."
From Wikipedia:
"Vice President Al Gore mentioned the tariff as a rejoinder to NAFTA objections voiced by Ross Perot during a debate in 1993 they had on the Larry King show. He gave Perot a framed picture of Smoot and Hawley shaking hands after its passage."
Al Gore is for Free Trade and globalism. Does that concern you?
Doug I didn't call you a name but I did say fuck you but that's not calling you a name it's more like a call to action lol. But who called you a name I'll report it to Walt and get it taken off today. I don't agree with you at all but a lively debate is more important than being right or wrong because regardless you can't leave without learning something. Please let me know or just hit the report a violation button. I personally apologize for that taking place on my article.
It's not a name per se Jesse, but when you are trying to have a decent intellectual conversation and the other person keeps calling you "dense," because they see it differently than you, it doesn't make for a debate I wish to participate in.
He's upset because he thinks that by me saying that he is being dense, I called him a name. It's a convenient way out of not addressing the points I keep repeatedly making that he keeps repeatedly ignoring.
Not upset. Just no need to converse with someone who utilizes the English language the way you do to prove a point. Perhaps you could take a course or two in debate so a teacher can lecture you on what language is apropos for a civil discussion.
Nobody is celebrating the downfall of the US economy. The only thing to celebrate if it does happen now is the fact that it would have been worse if it happened later. Yes, it will vindicate Ron Paul supporters, but I have yet to see 1 Paul suporter cheering this on.
I am sure there were some "I told you so" types when the Titanic sunk, but does that make them bad people? They only tried to stop a disaster, and want to be listened to next time for the same reason.
Not every body with a warning about consequences is evil.
You can choose to converse with someone who calls you dense. I choose not too. Freedom of choice and all... Loddi was crying out for someone to talk to him and when someone does, he calls them "dense." His mind is already made up...don't confuse him with any facts. I'll take my 20+ years as a financial advisor and move on. He doesn't want to converse with someone, he just wants to be right. I feel like I'm conversing with a high school kid.
Good luck to you both...especially with that raising taxes thing Loddi...worked real well with Mondale!
Dude, you're at it again. Making no sense, and sucking off Ron Paul's popularity to stroke your ego. You have passed embarrassment and joke status, and now you're just sand in the gears of real, reasoned debate. I think that deep down, you really know this, and you seem to think it's cool, what you're doing. But it isn't. I really don't want to actually debate what you say, because it's not real argument at all, but only Paultard bait. However, it's only fair, since I must reject the Nolan Chart, you and your "writing" utterly and finally. You said:
***
"He has done nothing but benefit from this campaign in every way yet supporters feel like Paul is going to help them pay their mortgage when things go wrong. Paul isn't going to do anything but take that money and run"
***
He benefits the same way that anyone who runs a campaign and gets donations benefits, or is he somehow doing something unique and diabolical - something other than just tell his supporters the truth, that is? No? Didn't think so. What is the basis of this claim, which you keep making as if it means something? How is Ron Paul benefitting from his presidential campaign in any way different than any other candidate has? If it isn't different, then why do you keep saying it? You're not scoring any points with anyone who has a brain.
No one said that Paul was going to pay their mortgage. No one thinks it. So, then, why do you say it? Answer: to inflame people.
What do you mean, "take that money and run"? Do you mean he's doing something wrong? Something illegal? What? Got any proof? Again, didn't think so. You're simply full of !@#$ and the stink is leaking out of your empty brain hole into the Internet. It's like pollution, only worse. And you're doing it deliberately.
You cannot write because you don't think clearly. You are so obviously a liberal because only liberals are capable of making so, so little sense. Not only do I think you are stupid, but also dishonest, and a mean-spirited asshole. Nolan Chart is a joke for publishing you. I will never publish anything here as long as your stupid childish bullshit is posted here AS THE WRITINGS OF A LIBERTARIAN.
****
Nolan Chart, you are losing credibility with me. I would love to write here, but I will not as long as this asshole posts here under the libertarian banner. Let him post as a centrist, a statist, a liberal - hell, he can call himself a conservative for all I care - BUT NOT A LIBERTARIAN ON A SITE THAT SHOULD KNOW BETTER.
I'm out of here; you guys are muddying the waters with this misleading crap. Somebody e-mail me when Nolan Chart gets themselves straightened out. tom@tomdesablashow.com
I really only have a couple things to say. 1) The statement by Jessie Jones that it seems people would expect Ron Paul to pay their mortgages is absurd. Ron Paul prides himself on the "Leave people alone" message. Leaving people alone includes not helping them when they get themselves into deep trouble. Now, misleading and unethical lending practices are partly to blame, and that should be taken care of, but not a bail-out. The government didn't sign those mortgage papers. I believe that there should be less fine-print. It should be a simple "If you're late, then you have a penalty and will be charged." Basically I think we have gotten too in-depth and nobody knows what they're getting themselves into. Having to put "Contents hot" on McDonald's coffee is ridiculous, and that's just "larger" fine-print.
2) We need to realize that Ron Paul isn't the answer. He is definitely a solution for now, although the time for that has passed. We The People are the answer. Don't be afraid to practice civil disobedience. If you don't believe in a law, don't follow it. Simple as that. If enough people do this, something will have to be fixed, and if it isn't, we all take our 2nd amendment and take it to Capitol Hill.
I think a perfect example of too much government power is the illegalization of Marijuana. Half of Americans have reported using it, proving that prohibition fails, and the people want it, or maybe not want it, but don't mind it. But .... we don't know what's good for us, and need to be protected from ourselves. Thanks Big Brother ... I'm glad you're there watching my back.
At the risk of being labled as an "anti-semitic" I offer the following. All questions regarding why RP was "blackballed" by the MSM and why those celebrities and electronic media personalities (Bill Maher, Wolf Blitzer, Lou Dobbs, Chris Mathews, Tucker Carlton, etal) who started out publically endorsing and positively reporting on him suddenly "changed their tune" and either refused to say his name or recognize his existance is because their jobs were threatened. I urg all readers to google "who owns america's media" and you will find the answers to all of your questions and each and everyone one of them lead directly to Israel! Like it or not ... Israel has us in a nuthold of major purportions, from our banks to our money supply, to our media, to our journalists, to our political process.
And what, exactly, does one get when one "wins the presidency" ??? If so, I surely do hope it's not like the one the get for winning "Dancing with the Stars" .... !!! Now there's some "real" TV for ya, eh?
Rick, I did notice Tucker Carlson after one of the debates biting his lip when asked his opinion. He spoke highly of the Huckster and you could tell it was strained. No one mentioned Dr. Paul, and then when the on line vote came in with Dr. Paul winning the debate they all laughed.
There is no question in my mind that they had their marching orders.
"I'll take my 20+ years as a financial advisor and move on. He doesn't want to converse with someone, he just wants to be right. I feel like I'm conversing with a high school kid."
doug,
Nice job rising above ad hom by comparing me to a high school kid. You can take your 20 years of experience as a financial advisor and compare it with this guys experience (from Wikipedia):
"Paul Craig Roberts (born April 3, 1939, in Atlanta, Georgia) is an economist and a nationally syndicated columnist for Creators Syndicate. He served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration earning fame as the "Father of Reaganomics". He is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service. He is a graduate of the Georgia Institute of Technology and he holds a Ph.D. from the University of Virginia. He was a post-graduate at the University of California, Berkeley, and Oxford University where he was a member of Merton College.
In 1992 he received the Warren Brookes Award for Excellence in Journalism. In 1993 the Forbes Media Guide ranked him as one of the top seven journalists in the United States."
Now, sense you said you read what I posted in reponse to the other article, did you read this link to an article by Paul Craig Roberts which points out the flaws in Free Trade?
Jesse, I find your article as well as this statement to be totally nonsensical: "But guess what he was running for President, if he wanted the message out he could've done that for free and should've made that know in November".
Fact is Ron Paul was and is running to get the message out as well as to be president. He was already successful in getting the lasting message out to a dedicated, enthusiastic group any other candidate can only dream of. And in order to do that you need money also, how one earth can one do this for free???
He is still running for president and his remarks weeks ago that anything can still happen with regard to McCain (and Huckabee) regarding a comment that could sink his race, a revelation, skeleton etc. is just as valid now than then. In fact after that statement a few relevations has been made and more can follow.
Paul has repeatedly said it is everyone's revelotion, not his only, which means he does not want to limit it to him only. He also means he needs some help. Sure he has to provide leadership. There are diverse groups and they have different expectations and advise: some want him to run now as third party and some want to work within the GOP for reform and some to stay in the race and see how many delegates he will receive. He is discussing options with his advisers and thinking through, I am sure. He os also helping to get friends elected. The revolution is not only on the presidency, but also in getting the right congress people elected: that is also very important and a way you can be active as well. It is not strategically prudent to make know all your plans know to all, if this does not happen, I will do this etc. Then you know nothing about strategy in politics yet and the battle he is facing. Nobody is certainly beyond criticism, but criticism should start with yourself and improving you so. If McCain can be denied the amount of delegates needed to win the election at the convention, then Paul has a good slingshot chance. I am sure they think about strategy in detail.
If Ron Paul is such a longshot kook, then why do you spend so much time attacking him ?
I suppose you think McHillobam is going to fix things...?!?...
Also, If the Federal Reserve founding member company JP Morgan, buying investment banks with freshly overnite printed money for pennies on the dollar, doesn't make you understand how screwed we are, then you are willfully ignorant.
Jamming your head in the sand won't make it go away.
When the government becomes involved in the affairs of corporations (or vice versa), it ceases in being a "Free Marketplace". Ask Mussolini about this one...
Personally I prefer to look to Our founders...
"If the American people ever allow banks the issuing power of money, the banks and corporations that spring up around them will through inflation and deflation rob the people of all property, untill their grandchildren wake up homeless on the continent their ancestors conquered." --Thomas Jefferson
Right, so I'm going to believe that the man that chooses not to participate in the lucrative congressional pension plan, is the one who will "take my money and run." That's such a lame, ignorant load of crap.
I am astonished that people don't see that Ron Paul was right all along, and it's not an "I told ya so" feeling I have, it's an "oh crap, he was right, and our government is so f**cked that they knew he was right, and did everything they could to suppress him."
I'm not going around saying "I told ya so," but I'm certainly sharing what I've learned, and am not so quick to take what MSM reports as the truth.
Dr. Paul is still in the race, thus still using the money we have donated, WHY CAN'T PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT? I for one, am glad he is still in, and would love to see him make it to the convention, and that costs money.
Argh, why is everyone acting like a bunch of cry babies and fair weather friends?
I think it's perfectly fine to have an "I told you so" mentality - so long as it is not condescending and obnoxious. The truth is that Paul has been telling us so for 30 years now. He has been warning us of the fall of our currency and the inefficiencies of the Federal Reserve combined with our terrible foreign policy. Now, we are starting to see these warnings come to fruition. People need to know that we are right.
Also, there is A LOT to be positive about. Ron Paul and his team did not fail. So far, Ron Paul has received 821,712 votes in caucuses and primaries. That's a remarkable number for a Libertarian. When all is done, he will probably have well over a million votes total. Sure, it is peanuts compared to other candidates, but it is certainly a step in the right direction.
We are talking about fundamentally changing the course of our nation and that doesn't happen overnight. It takes decades.
Let's hang in there and keep our chins up. Let's not talk about failure. We don't have time for that.
I'll agree that the Ron Paul campaign had some shortcomings. His strategy didn't work for his 1980 run so why he thought it would work this time is beyond me. Maybe he didn't want to be prez anyway. Maybe he wanted his true believers to carry the torch and continue the message. Maybe complaining about his campaign is a waste of time and you should be looking forward and not backward. Get involved in politics and government to spread the message. Better than posting rants on Nolan chart.
If Ron Paul were a true politician, he would lie, cheat, and steal his way into the White House. How do you think Obama has gotten so far? By being honest with his followers? No. He crafted a campaign that appeals and pursuades to ones emotions. Obama is a professional politician more than anything else. If anyone believes that Obama will end the war in Iraq, then they have been suckered. I'll bet anyone $100 he does not completely withdraw troops. I'm thinking he will keep at least 80,000 there for another 50 years. He will do this while growing the power and influence of the federal government to unimaginable heights. Get ready for war if Obama is elected. It will be hell to stop that train wreck.
There are areas that I have 100% agreement with Paul Craig Roberts. I like his stance on the war, on Bush and his administration, on the Republican party (neocons), on the media, on the Constitution (abuses of), and on police power (abuses of).
What I didn't find on the Libertarian, Lew Rockwell site, was any article he has written on Free Trade and Protectionism. You can look for yourself here: [link edited for length] He mentions a little bit about jobs in the last paragraph here: [link edited for length] and that's it.
Now why would Lew Rockwell, who runs the Austrian Economic School of Thought, Mises University, not post Roberts protectionist writings? Could it be because he disagrees with it?
Who does Rockwell have speak out against Roberts, but Pepperdine University professor of economics, George Reisman where he concludes the following refuting Roberts: "Let Schumer, Roberts, and all other advocates of state intervention restrain their desire to unleash the Polizei and the troops to stop people from doing what benefits them. They need to read more of Ricardo, and Mises and Bastiat, before urging such policies." [link edited for length]
Here is one of Reisman's latest articles for better understanding of globalization: "Globalization: The Long-Run Big Picture:" [link edited for length] where he addresses Roberts and others who feel as you do: "Some critics of globalization, notably Paul Craig Roberts, do not understand how it promotes capital accumulation and instead believe that it deprives the advanced countries of capital. Others, notably Gomory and Baumol, view the effect of globalization on nominal GDP as though it were its effect on real GDP and are thus led to confuse competition for limited money revenue and income with economic conflict. This article answers both sets of errors, including related confusions concerning outsourcing."
So you are for state intervention through higher taxes of We The People.
Reisman's offers better solutions (a synopsis of his writings for your convenience), "The economic advance of the rest of the world would not be at the expense of what is today the First World (America, Europe, etc.) but as the source of major gains to what is today the First World." and "In terms of real physical wealth, which Ricardo called 'riches,' both groups of countries would be vastly better off." and "Dr. Roberts, it thus turns out is probably at least a decade out of date in his worries that the United States is being drained of capital to build up the economy of China." and "Every time one industry or one country displaces another in free competition, there is a gain to the general economic system, because now the supply of goods produced is larger and better." and "Contrary to the negative associations it has, outsourcing serves to reduce the prices that Americans pay by more than it reduces their incomes." and here's a good one to understand, "If only everything that we now produce could fall in cost of production and price by 90% while our wage rates fell by only 20% or 33%!" and "The case of outsourcing is fundamentally no different than the case of adopting labor-saving machinery." and "Innovation and competition continually change the specifics of comparative advantage..." and "Any form of government regulation that serves to reduce output per unit of capital invested is also a threat to capital accumulation and the domestic standard of living."
I'll let you have the last word Loddi. Will it be more than the posting of a Paul Craig Roberts article? How about refuting Reisman? How about addressing more state involvement in our lives via higher taxes?
Posted By: The Concerned
Date: 2008-03-18 12:49:53
to: : doug eberhardt
Thank you for the links. I love the readings.
While I agree with most of what you say, the changes Ron Paul asks for are still very extreme to say the very least. On the good side, he has brought light to the problem. However understanding it is quite another as we can see here.
To know a problem, you must know of the problem. To understand the problem, you must also understand the problem. To solve the problem, you must know both. And these two are a must before one actually TRIES to solve the problem.
Ron Paul in this respect has done a spectacular job. He is however going to catch some flak for any failures or successes he has. Even if he did make it as president, he would only be able to dismantle the military. He would not neccessarily be able to do anything else as it requires the senate and house. Understand Jesse Jones, if he was to be elected but bills were not introduced, he might as well not be president since he can't make core changes and pulling out the military is NOT the key.
Ron Paul is a man of morals. You cannot dispute this. He has stood by his morals and his belief of how states should run. He has not changed his standard unlike others to suit others solely for the sake of. If anything, his weakness as you noted Jesse Jones, is that he is unyielding. Notably though the yielding the other candidates have are that to unending solutions and poltical sniping. He, however, has stuck with what he said. McCain has burned people, Obama has done the opposite of what he has said, Hilary is on a powertrip (or it seems that way), and Ron Paul is unyielding. But at least Ron Paul is predictable and has a plan. But it will not succeed because he can't get it to pass without the legistature. THAT is the next goal obviously. The next goal is to get people WITH nuetral ethics in government. It is not for anything but to get something done in the future. And then hopefully his morals will go on and make it into government.
It would be better to follow what is going on than to blast at a candidate. List the weaknesses and faults is fine. Blasting upon speculation of what he is is worthless as it is your opinion. Face it, he has done a good job of spreading word of news that has been hushed.
To solve a problem requires recognition that there is a problem. To know of the problem is not enough if the problem is not recognized as a problem that needs to be dealt with.
Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-03-18 13:28:10
1st it is a true fact that people have to become uncomfortable in order to seek change. I do not revel in the financial downturn of this country but look forward to the positive changes that will come about after such hardship. Face it, people are not gonna change one ioda as long as they have gas for their SUVs and cable TV to watch. Now make gas $6 a gallon (its coming) then all other goods will go up. Milk will become as expspeive as gas then what. The people wont be able to afford TV then they will look for other avenues to improve their situation. So not from a "I told you so" stand point, but this is a neccessary evil that we NEED to cure the apathy of the rest of the herd.
Loddi,
You try and argue two points as one, your article that you reference argues Free Trade AND globalization, two totally differnt animlas completely, albiet they can have direct relations to each other. Your arguement of tarriffs is simply that and arguement and not an educated discussion of the topic at hand and the supporting facts. And argue with the chief of Reaganomics? Who would want to? Didnt Reagan raise taxes? Not very LIBERTARIAN to say the least. Relabel yourself as a statist and we would be able to swallow you better. Arent you a member of the LP? Do you read any of the newsleaders, writings etc? You may be well to take all of your energy and channel that into making some real progress. Run for office. Change things by your actions, not by opining over the past.
How many times are you going to say that as if you want me not to retort? You are wrong, and so is Reisman because you both fail to address the following 2 simple questions that I keep asking:
How can you expect Americans to compete directly with slave labor and remain free? How can you completely integrate economies and expect nations to remain sovereign?
I disagree with the ENTIRE school of Austrian economics who state that globalism is good and so is Free Trade. Put down your calculators and grab some history books, you dolts.
What an embarrassing crybaby post you've given us. Paul didn't win so now let's turn on him and deligitimize his campaign because it was flawed? You seem to be under the assumption that if everything went perfect with the campaign that he would be our president. umm, wake up, he never really had a chance to win. Only a chance to change the consciousness of the country. The forces that oppose Paul are his own party, the MSM and most of all the stupidity of the average american voter. It's going to take a while to overcome all those obstacles. Stop crying like a baby and keep pushing the message of freedom. Paul and his campaign nor supporters that i've seen are happy about our economic downturn. You're inventing outrage because you emotionally invested in the man and he isn't going to win this election. Grow up and see the vision that the rest of us see.............we're out to change the direction of the entire country. It's going to take while. Thank God Ron Paul is not the conventional candidate you wish he was.
"Your arguement of tarriffs is simply that and arguement and not an educated discussion of the topic at hand and the supporting facts. And argue with the chief of Reaganomics? Who would want to? Didnt Reagan raise taxes? Not very LIBERTARIAN to say the least. Relabel yourself as a statist and we would be able to swallow you better."
I should be labeled a statist because I want America (me and you) to remain free and independent? Are you f-ing kidding me?
Did you even know that Hamilton's Tariff Act of 1789, which was signed by George Washington on July 4th, was touted as "The Second Declaration of Indepence" by newspapers of the day? Do you know what the purpose of tariffs are? It is not to stifle our economy or cause the price of things to go up in our economy. It is to allow our products we Americans produce to be better sold at home in America than for other countries to undercut our productivity and undermine our economy. Tariffs are essential to independence and freedom. Still think I'm a statist?
Your questions were answered if you'd take the time to read. I say you can have the last word because there is no refuting what I write. You just want to rehash the same thing over and over and you're a waste of time to talk to because you don't listen.
So I'll take the last word....
You said, "How can you expect Americans to compete directly with slave labor and remain free? Put down your calculators and grab some history books, you dolts".
To which the reply was;
"In the nineteenth century, Europe was the source of much of the capital used to develop the United States. But it was not very long before the resulting great expansion of production in the United States made the US a major supplier not only of consumers' goods but also of capital goods to Europe. Capital accumulation in Europe was increased as the result of Europe's investment of capital in the United States. And in exactly the same way, the investment of capital in the western United States, made possible by savings made in the eastern United States, soon so increased production in the western part of the country that it became a source of capital accumulation in the eastern United States."
and as far as understanding history son...
"Every time one industry or one country displaces another in free competition, there is a gain to the general economic system, because now the supply of goods produced is larger and better." and "Contrary to the negative associations it has, outsourcing serves to reduce the prices that Americans pay by more than it reduces their incomes." and here's a good one to understand, "If only everything that we now produce could fall in cost of production and price by 90% while our wage rates fell by only 20% or 33%!" and "The case of outsourcing is fundamentally no different than the case of adopting labor-saving machinery." and "Innovation and competition continually change the specifics of comparative advantage..." and "Any form of government regulation that serves to reduce output per unit of capital invested is also a threat to capital accumulation and the domestic standard of living."
You said, "How can you completely integrate economies and expect nations to remain sovereign?"
My liberty is threatened only by our own government, not by foreign competition; by liberals such as yourself, not by free markets. As I've already pointed out, you want to take the fixed income of seniors in America and have them pay more taxes to protect what you perceive to be an attack on their soverignity from lower cost products produced by foreign labor instead of American labor. Ask them if they'd like to pay more for things? But maybe in your book, seniors don't matter. You'd rather force them to go live in a 3rd world country because they can't afford to live here because of your beloved tarrif's.
Do not both economies benefit when prices are lowered here in the U.S.? The consumer has more money to spend on other items correct? How does this hurt our soverignity?
A few other things for you to ponder...
Foreign investment in the U.S. has increased year over year. What would we do as a society if we didn't have Japan and China loan us the money necessary to conduct our business and fund our deficits? Your solution is to tax We The People more. What would this do to the value of the dollar if all of a sudden Japan and China, because of your protectionst taxes then said here, take your dollars back...we don't want them any longer? You'd have to be one ignorant politician to suggest we do that.
Lastly, you're a statist because you want the state to intervene in free markets...got it?
Well if its ok to say "damn" then how about "hell", as in what the hell are you talking about? It sounds like you're mad at Ron Paul for being right. Or are you mad at him because the American people are too dumbed down to understand that he was right? Or are you just plain mad?
My core belief in all this is that Ron Paul is a poor leader. I am criticizing him in areas he needs to step up in but is failing to do so. Encouragement doesn't work. There are literally thousands of GO RON PAUL articles on Nolan Charts but yet Ron Paul doesn't seem to have any fight in him? He hasn't stepped up as a leader. I think he has a poor definition of leadership or low self esteem. I think he feels that if he steps up and gives direction he will be compromising his views to do so; views concerning the rights of the individual and not interfering with someone's private life. However, he neglects to remember that we don't have to follow anything that he says, that we still have choice but it would be nice to have direction. My articles, aimed at slicing the legs out from under him, will keep coming!!! He will either have to step up or step on. We can't do this without leadership and organization. If he doesn't want to do that then he needs to step off and he deserves the criticism. If he does I'll be the first to have his back again.
"Foreign investment in the U.S. has increased year over year. What would we do as a society if we didn't have Japan and China loan us the money necessary to conduct our business and fund our deficits? Your solution is to tax We The People more."
There you go putting words in my mouth. Did I say to tax We The People? Why is it that we need to rely so heavily on other countries to the point where they could bring us to our needs? Isn't that an entangling alliance?
"Lastly, you're a statist because you want the state to intervene in free markets...got it?"
Free Trade does not equal the free market, got it? What you are advocating is reverse protectionism whereby other countries tax our products we send to them and yet we do not tax their products sent here, got it? If you are talking about advocating free trade on a global scale, then you are advocating world government, got it?
I want remain free and independent instead of competing with slave labor, got it?
If people can't enrich themselves by peaceful means, they will do so through violent means.
The effect of tarrifs are a regressive tax, effecting the poor more than the rich.
Tariffs reduce innovation.
With no competition, there is no incentive to make better products.
Increases costs.
Retaliation against tariffs:
Smoot-Howley tariff, passed in by Hoover. Raised the average tariff rate around 45-50%. US exports had declined by 53% in 1932.
These tariffs strengthened the Japanese Fascists, just like Versailles strengthened Hitler.
Hayek -- "If you want the benefits of competition, then you have to realize that when your time comes to adapt to changing economic conditions, you have to adapt and not lobby for protection."
Companies are reducing costs, which results in lowered prices through savings.
Stimulates US exports.
"Downsized jobs" are often the result of technological improvement, which leads to other types of jobs being created.
A small percentage of people are employed in these industries.
Making Enemies Some of the worst attacks on our personal freedom come in the form of edicts as to whom we can trade with, and whom we must make war on. - Joseph Potts, January 14, 2004 [Mises]
Lumber: A 29 Percent Tax Count the term "free trade" as another casualty of political rhetoric and chicanery. - Christopher Mayer, March 27, 2002 [Mises]
Europe targets guns, garters and lentils in trade war The transatlantic trade rift over steel erupted into the pantihose and suspender war last night as the European Union drew up an extraordinary list of 325 American products that it may hit with huge tariffs. - Stephen Castle, March 23, 2002 [Independent.co.uk]
Bushwhacked in Timber Country "President Bush didn't sound like ultra-protectionists Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot during last year's election campaigns, but he certainly acting like these gentlemen now that he is president." - David N. Laband and Daowei Zhang, August 20, 2001 [Mises]
Enemies of Trade "The FTAA protesters in Quebec were misguided. So was the police-state response to them." - Evan McElravy, July 2001 [REASON]
This Isn't Free Trade "According to the hoopla, the World Trade Organization (WTO) was created in 1995 as an instrument of global free trade. Instead, it is proving to be a vehicle for corruption, economic reprisals, and politicization of trade." - James Sheehan, July 1999 [Mises]
Treaty? What Treaty? Review of Is NAFTA Constitutional? "The authors of Is NAFTA Constitutional? call attention to a striking absence in the heated public debate over the Nafta agreement. The measure secured the approval of both Houses of Congress, albeit with considerable arm-twisting from the White House. But the Constitution on its face mandates another procedure for agreements of this sort." - David Gordon, Fall 1996 [Mises]
Why Protectionism Sells "Voter opposition to major 'free trade' agreements helped propel a surge in protectionist rhetoric this year." - James Sheehan, July 1996 [Mises]
Who Killed Free Trade? "Trade restrictions, Ludwig von Mises argued in 'Autarky and its Consequences' (1943), are the fulfillment of domestic economic intervention. When governments destroy prosperity, there are always politicians--FDR comes to mind--willing to take the fast track to economic stimulus, the long term be damned." - Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., April 1996 [Mises]
Foreign Trade Follies After two years of pretending to be for free trade, the Clinton administration, backed by the Republican leadership in Congress, finally 'fessed up. In their dealings with China and Mexico, they shredded two centuries of economic wisdom, repudiated every principle of sensible economic relations, and kicked taxpayers and consumers in the teeth. - Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., April 1995 [Mises]
Blockading Ourselves - Cecil E. Bohanon and T. Norman Van Cott, February 1989 [FEE]
The Evil of Sanctions "Among the conventional weapons in the arsenal of the modern Warfare State, none is crueler or more indiscriminate than economic sanctions." - Justin Raimondo, April 1988 [Mises]
Stop the WTO "Where's the trick? That's the first question to ask about any international trade deal these days. What appears to be a step in the right direction – towards greater liberty in trade across borders – turns out to be a leap into world statism." - Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., February 1994 [LewRockwell.com]
Cliche: "Foreign Imports Destroy Jobs." "If imports are restricted consumers have fewer choices, the price of goods rises, and some people are put out of work." - Russell Shannon [cliches.org] (PDF format)
India, Pakistan Vows Better Economic Ties India, Pakistan Leaders Call Peace Process "Irreversible," Promise Better Economic Ties. - Ashok Sharma, April 18, 2005 [ABC News]
Free Trade and Factor Mobility ...we should welcome these developments because they mean lower prices for imported goods and services, and hence a higher standard of living for Americans. - Robert P. Murphy, January 11, 2004 [Mises]
Richard Cobden: Activist for Peace Nicknamed the "Apostle of Free Trade," he spearheaded the campaign against the protectionist English Corn Laws, leading to their repeal in 1846, which then spread to the liberalization of trade throughout much of Europe. - Gary Galles, February 19, 2003 [Mises]
Calhoun's Cause: Free Trade American ingenuity and entrepreneurship, not protectionism, were the source of the nation’s wealth, he said in response to Henry Clay’s mercantilist superstitions. - Thomas J. DiLorenzo, July 15, 2002 [Mises]
Direct from Chile Throughout this past winter, Indiana grocery stores have heralded the availability of fresh Chilean fruit. "Direct from Chile," proclaimed the ads. - T. Norman Van Cott, March 26, 2002 [Mises]
Taiwan's PC Makers Shift Production to China "For Horace Tsiang, who has already put his stake in the ground, the issue is simple. 'If war breaks out,' he said, 'the U.S. won't have any computer suppliers. That's why we hope the Bush administration will get along with China.'" - Mark Landler, May 29, 2001 [FreeRepublic]
The Free Market Means Civilization "What poor countries need more than our pathos is American capital, and that is precisely what the Holiday guilt-mongers most want to restrict." - Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., December 22, 2000 [LewRockwell.com]
Trade: Key to Prosperity "The best means to help the undeveloped nations of the world is the same as the best means to cure many of the ills that plague more developed nations: Adopt the ideology of the free market. This will lead to the breakdown of all barriers to trade. This will lead to the deployment of resources to the ends that satisfy the most urgent needs of the buying public. Inevitably, the plight of the Third World would improve." - Christopher Mayer, December 20, 1999, [Mises]
Free Trade without the WTO "To advance freedom, free trade and higher standards of living for us, the American people should require the U.S. government to unilaterally repeal U.S. tariffs, import quotas, and other trade restrictions." - Jacob G. Hornberger, December 1999 [Future of Freedom Foundation]
Chile Takes a Bold Step Toward Freer Trade "For more than two decades Chile has been a laboratory for successful free-market reforms." - José Piñera & Aaron Lukas, January 16, 1999 [CATO]
Libertarian Solutions: A Libertarian-style foreign policy: Why free trade equals prosperity Part III of a foreign policy series - "Trade restrictions on foreign products lower the standard of living for American consumers. Tariffs, quotas, and other trade barriers are the functional equivalent of a tax, artificially raising the cost of foreign goods and increasing the price that consumers must pay." - Michael Tanner, May 1998 [LP News]
A Powerful Case for Free Trade Trade is not invasion. It does not involve aggression on one side and resistance on the other, but mutual consent and gratification. - Henry George, June 1996 [FEE]
The Forgotten Argument for Free Trade "In essence, it says that men who are free to do so will discover their relative production efficiencies and will exploit them to mutual advantage — if they specialize and trade with one another." - Samuel Bostaph, October 1994 [The Future of Freedom Foundation]
Business Profits or Human Rights? "Business profits vs. human rights. So do critics of trade with China frame the debate. But freer trade is likely to advance human rights, as well as boost business profits." - Doug Bandow [CTPS]
California Prosperity and Chinese Reform "The U.S. Congress is about to cast one of the most important votes on trade policy in a decade. The vote on whether to extend to China permanent normal trading relations (PNTR) has profound implications not only for consumers and businesses in California and the rest of the United States but also for the people of China, millions of whom are still mired in poverty due to China’s disastrous socialist legacy. Extending PNTR to China, and China’s subsequent accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO), will help China’ s leaders reform its state-owned economy into one guided by market forces." - Mark A. Groombridge [CTPS]
If that's true, then what do you think it is that is pissing off countries around the globe and pissing off Americans. It's not so peaceful, and continuing down the path towards globalism will be less and less peaceful as it continues. You're not just pissing off a country or 2, you're pissing off the entire world.
You still never answered either of my 2 simple questions.
Jessie James Jones Jr. said "No cursing in this one other than damn so let the real criticism begin." And then Jessie James Jones Jr. said "Doug I didn't call you a name but I did say fuck you but that's not calling you a name it's more like a call to action lol."
Damn!
In any case, your disgust with some Ron Paul supporters is noted.
I personally don't take an "I told you so" attitude with people. Rather, I encourage them to spend their money as soon as they can, on useful "stuff". When the dollar is sinking like a stone, "stuff" is better than dollars.
Those that gloat about other people's pain are evil... plain and simple. I don't personally know any Ron Paul supporters that enjoy other people's pain.(I know many Ron Paul supporters) To the contrary, I find us to be an empathetic bunch. What I do see is a recognition of what needs to come to pass in order for meaningful change to take place.
Who is the OP to claim what the reason is that someone should run for president? Why can't someone run for president for any reason they want? Is it not a free country?
And, like it or not, the fact is that several of the things Paul predicted are coming true. This is going to be a "told ya so" whether we want it to be or not.
Ray, you're cute. But the statement above was a summation of the article not a contract that I wouldn't curse.
If you are familar with logical falisies then you are aware that simple because a person curses while stating a truth or logical argument does not take away the truth or validity or soundness of the statement.
If a Doctor were examning you and found cancer and said, "Oh shit, you have cancer you stupid fuck!!" His curse words don't take away from that fact.
So anyone who points out cursing as a substantive argument is in fact grossly dense to logic.
The old cliche that if you dig a grave for one you'd better dig two applies here and that as this economy sinks we should not take the direction of saying I told ya so. It doesn't bring people to the fold. And since the upper management is silent and completely inept as their run for president proves, I don't think I should wait to bring this little gem of a fact up.
P.S. It's weird how Rand Paul always runs his mouth for his father. I think he either needs to put up or shut up and stop writing articles because if I were in his position I certainly wouldn't be writing articles I'd be making headlines.
"if I were in his position I certainly wouldn't be writing articles I'd be making headlines".
Why don't you then start making headlines then? and take on the media? Show us how you will lead and persuade people with insulting others and criticizing their leadership till the ground without offering any ideas yourself, and - more importantly - not placing yourself in the shoes of the likes of Ron Paul.
IMHO Paul has already proven his leadership over the decades with various actions and with his votes, insight and wisdom. Do you know or can imagine what pressure there is on you as a member of a party to vote with the leadership and what courage it takes to follow the constitution when it conflicts with party policy and in a very complicated situation with many critisizing you for voting according to the constitution??? Nobody is beyond criticism and Paul has said himself he is very self-critical. The fact that he is extremely kind in person does not mean he is weak by any stretch. He can through very forcefull in the debates. The attention and scrunity is on you when you differ on an important issue like the Iraq war. If you always fight the whole system with your whole words with an angry face, always shouting, complaining, accusing etc...do you think you will get any sympathy or affection or respect? Or could it be that some people/voters who like you for your personality develop and openness to your views also? I think if you are always going to be upset at the media, complain etc. you are going to make it so easy for them to paint you as an "extremist" and then your whole message and persuasion - how good it may be - is totally lost. Paul had to battle with the fact that he was not known. If he would have been a senator or governor, it would have been much easier. He did run a race for the senate in the 1990's but lost to Phil Gramm (who is on McCain campaign now). I have not given up hope yet, but in any case Paul has already achieved a lot of success by assembling a strong grassroot support as ever, and enthusiasm. The revolution is NOT only connected to the presidential race, it is also connected to a stage by stage revolution by electing congressmen/women and senators that support our ideals. They are also the lawmakers, and regadless who wins the presidential election, if they win witht he mid-term election in 2010, the revolution will already be ruling in a certain sense.
No way, dude. The revolution begins with me. Just kidding, The Revolution began with the founders' proposition that all men are created equal and that we shall therefore have a government of laws and not men. But we need soldiers and it appears that you and I are in the same intellectual fox hole. Your essays show me I got lucky in drawing a comrade who is competent and inclined to think for himself and believe the report of his own intellect.
Four score and seven years after the Revolution, that proposition that all men are created equal was tested in a great civil war. The genius of Lincoln was his clear articulation of the purpose of that war, namely, preservation of the union which defended that most fundamental proposition on which our government and liberty rest.
So we need a new union and we need to form a government in exile. So let's unite. Talk to me. NoNationalID@CreativeSedition.com
I have had more time to read over and think about what you posted, and you make some excellent points about trade and peace. Hopefully, peace is what lies ahead. Thank you for taking your time to point things out to me.
